Even as millions of unemployed Americans are looking to higher education as a way to retool their skills and get back to work, it seems that some Congressional leaders are determined to make it more difficult for low-income students to attend and pay for college.

This year, Pell Grants are providing a ticket to the American Dream for 9.4 million college students. At some schools, like California State University, Fresno, more than 50 percent of students rely on the grants to pay their tuition, and help them prepare for much-needed careers in health care, education, law enforcement, and more.

Samantha Roberts, a NEA-Student member studying elementary education at St. Leo’s University in Florida, relies on Pell Grant funds to pay her tuition, and also help with rent and food. “Without my Pell Grant, I would have to work multiple jobs and go to school part-time,” she said—and, studies show, her chances of actually earning a degree and becoming a much-needed elementary school teacher would plummet.

By 2018, this country will need 22 million new workers with college degrees to meet the burgeoning needs of employers—but it likely will fall short by 3 million, a recent Georgetown University study found. “And that, quite simply, is something (this country) can’t afford,” the authors wrote.

Rosengren also cited statistics around degree and income: “While the median income of all households is approximately $50,000, there are substantial differences based on educational attainment…Those with just a high school diploma have about three-quarters of the median income. Those with professional degrees have more than twice the median income.”

So basically, by cutting Pell Grants to half a million poor students, the House committee would be ensuring that the poor stay poor. They no longer would have access to college—and the well-paid jobs that follow.

Specifically, the House bill would save $4.3 billion by: eliminating less-than-half-time students; immediately lowering the lifetime limit from 18 to 12 semesters; adding new sources of untaxed income to the determination of Expected Family Contribution (EFC), such as child tax credits, welfare benefits, and untaxed Social Security benefits; and other measures.

Meanwhile, in the Senate, the Appropriates Subcommittee has proposed protecting the grant maximum of $5,550 and current eligibility—but it did so by proposing to eliminate the six-month grace period that follows graduation for low-income borrowers. In its report, the Committee explains: “The Committee makes this change reluctantly, but believes it is preferable to reducing the maximum Pell Grant award.”

Complicating matters even further, it’s still unclear whether the “Super Committee,” the bipartisan group of lawmakers tasked with producing a deficit-reduction plan by Nov. 23, has its own designs on the Pell Grant program. It’s assumed that the committee is reviewing student loans and Pell. Says the Student Aid Alliance, of which NEA is a member, “’Review’ doesn’t necessarily mean cuts, but student aid advocates are…concerned…”